Reset Password
Reset Link Sent
| Blogs > MissAnnThrope > Misanthropic Ramblings |
$2.00 An Hour Is A Living Wage
|
$2.00 An Hour Is A Living Wage As we all know, The House Of Representatives voted to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, over a span of two years. The first raise in the minimum wage in over 10 years. The Republican Congress we had thought 80% of Americans were out of step with the country and kept voting down any rise. The vote is now waiting to go to the full Senate. But one Senator had other plans. You in Colorado must be ever so proud of Senator Wayne Allard. He hops all the trendy issues for the far right. First it was flag burning, which so few people in this country do outside of Legion posts were tattered flags are burned with reverence and then it was gay marriage. Well, now this man is freaked that the minimum wage rise passed the House, so he wanted to nip it in the bud in the Senate. Allard introduced a bill this past week to do away with the minimum wage. To leave minimum wage up to the individual states, as no workers will get screwed that way. Because, you know, each state has unique needs and they all have minimum wage laws, right? And the good people of Kansas are poorer than a Mississippi dirt farmer, so they can live on the state minimum wage of $2.65 an hour, right? Allard and 28 of his fellow Republicans seem to think so. They seem to think there should be no federal protections for the workers of this country. Besides, it's only Mexicans who are willing to work for minimum wage anyway, so why not just do away with it, pay them a buck an hour and then they'll all go home? The list of Senators who voted for this amendment are interesting as well. On the list were Brownback and McCain, who are both running for President. Brownback, who is from Kansas said when he announced last week, that he's all for the little guy. By little guy, I guess he means a midget who drives a Porsche. Or those guys who drive Hummers to make up for their, um, shortcomings. It isn't just Kansas where the minimum wage worker would be screwed. Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee have no minimum wage laws. In Utah, Texas, Kentucky, Oklahoma and Virginia have no actual state minimum wages. Instead, their laws state, state minimum wage law does not contain current dollar minimums. Instead the state law authorizes the adoption of the Federal minimum wage rate via administrative action or reference. In other words, if the federal minimum wage is done away with, there is no longer a minimum wage in these state. So it's no surprise that Cochran and Lott of Mississippi, Bennett and Hatch of Utah, Cornyn of Texas, Coburn and Inhofe of Oklahoma, Bunning and McConnell of Kentucky and DeMint and Graham of South Carolina and Alexander of Tennessee voted to do away with the federal minimum wage. People in their states can obviously live on $40 a week. While 28 states have minimum wage set higher than the federal minimum wage, as you can't even get teenagers to work at McDonald's for $5.15 an hour in most places, some where the state minimum wage is set at the federal level have some odd rules. If minimum wage were left up to the state, a good number of employees in Oklahoma would only be making $2.00 a hour. To make that whopping $5.15 an hour, you'd have to work for a company that have "ten or more full time employees at any one location and employers with annual gross sales over $100,000 irrespective of number of full time employees." OK, that's obviously a very old law. If you run a small maid service with only 5 employees and you charge $10 an hour for this service, you're right at revenue of $100,000 a year. I have a feeling this law dates back to the 1950s, when minimum wage was $2.00 an hour. In Indiana, the state minimum wage only applies if you have two or more employees. The same goes for Michigan, but the state minimum wage there is set at $6.85 an hour and is set to rise to $7.15 in July. In Minnesota, the state minimum wage is $5.25 for companies with less than $650,000 in revenue a year, $6.15 for over that amount. Montana doesn't seem bad with a state minimum wage of $6.15, but once again, if a company has gross annual sales of $110,000 or less, the rate is well below the federal minimum at $4.00 an hour. The US Territories have minimum wage laws that are even more confusing. In Puerto Rico, only employers covered by the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act have to pay $5.15 an hour. Everyone else can pay as low as $3.61 an hour. In American Samoa, the minimum wage is set by the industry a business falls under and is set by a special committee. All of which are well under the federal minimum. It's bad enough that on Labor Day in 2004, Bush signed a bill doing away with mandatory overtime pay. A good number of states have no laws for overtime and went by the federal time and a half standards. Why do they keep trying to screw workers, while giving executives who drive businesses into the ground golden parachutes? Remember the names. Alexander (R-TN), Allard (R-C  , Bennett (R-UT), Bond (R-M, Brownback (R-KS), Bunning (R-KY), Burr (R-NC), Chambliss (R-GA), Coburn (R-OK), Cochran (R-MS), Cornyn (R-TX), Craig (R-ID), Crapo (R-ID), DeMint (R-SC), Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY), Graham (R-SC), Gregg (R-NH), Hagel (R-NE), Hatch (R-UT), Inhofe (R-OK), Isakson (R-GA), Kyl (R-AZ), Lott (R-MS), McCain (R-AZ), McConnell (R-KY), Sununu (R-NH), Thomas (R-WY).Remember them and vote them out. They hate anyone who doesn't make lots of money. They care about nothing but the CEOs. They hold us in contempt for not making as much as they do. They are out of touch with the American public completely and care about nothing but their own greed and power. Don't vote for them. And don't be surprised McCain is on this list. He pretends to be moderate when it suits him, but he's far enough to the right to make Cheney look like a moderate. |
||||
|
Well, I don't live in Colorado, though I'm told I should visit. Come into my realm! You aren't afraid...are you?
| |||
1/27/2007 2:30 pm |
Surpised McCain is on the list??? I'd be shocked if he weren't... He lives on the far right (in a very clandestine style) but dances with themoderates. He is a Quintessential far right conservative republican in a politicians clothes... He's starting to remind me of Mondale... Not in his politics, but in that he just doesn't know when to quit... It is amazing, is it not, that those who really want NO minimum wage, are the ones tweaking and cutting back so that they can make a few more million for themselves as they find another hundred million for the stock holders... I wonder just how long the blue class will keep on bending over and taking it like a man...
| |||
1/27/2007 3:55 pm |
What about Nebraska?  Too bad we couldn't trade places with some of the senators and see how THEY like living on 15,000 a year working 40 hours a week and either no health care or no vacation time. Then I'm sure they'd be all for raising minimum wage! I'm leaving the site end of March. To those who want to keep in touch, see blog for details.
| |||
|
boy, sort of gives loose definition to "minimum wage", doesn't it? I don't think I remember a time when politics wasn't geared towards the rich, major corporations, and special interests. Sadly, I don't think I'll ever know anything else.
| |||
1/27/2007 7:48 pm |
Thanks for the info, Miss Ann, you might just be the single least biased source of US political news! AND THE WINNER IS ~~~~ [post 2692868]
| |||
1/27/2007 9:33 pm |
Good lord...you took my comment out of context! (and don't spout off on me again, anyone who's smart enough would understand my comment.) Now, not to be a bitch, but what I was saying was that if a politician traded places with me for ONE month, and only get 1,000 pay for working 40 hours a week, 8 hour shifts 5 days a week...roughly 15K....it STILL would be barely enought to make ends meet. The problem is that THEY can give themselves a pay raise whenever they feel like it. We can't. I'm not saying that they didn't work hard...they did, but they got huge egos along the way the more power they gain. Like Cute said, education means shit when you know the right person to fuck and how to get what you want. Brown nosers get more because they ass kiss and they STILL complain!!! YOU try living on 15K a year or less and wonder why you can barely get by b/c most, if not ALL of your paycheck goes to rent, heating, electicity, insurance for the car, and a means of communicating with the outside world via a phone or internet. I don't have health insurance or dental and I'm in school. I struggle to even be able to get groceries. I live on $50 worth of grocieries a month...sometimes 2 months...and yet I make too much money to get assistance but not enough to comfortably live. Remember, the cost of living has increased in the last 10 years by over 50% Many people who could live comfortably on minimum wage 9 years ago are struggling now. My job pay rate is 8.20 an hour...and I let me tell you, the BS I put up with at my job pales in comparison to some of the jobs I've had. I've been a CNA, a fast food worker and a corn detassler. CNA's and other nurses don't get paid enough to wipe your ass when you are old and can't do it yourself. Sorry Ann...I just hate it when people take my comments out of context like that when they are ignorant of other people's situations. I'm leaving the site end of March. To those who want to keep in touch, see blog for details.
| |||
|
hmmmm...mizzkitka seems to be very opinionated. I wonder what her opinions on this would be... Gay Couple Uses Map On Dartboard To Determine Next Place To Live
| |||
1/29/2007 10:47 am |
MissAnn ... 'Sorry but I don't have time to participate in this class-envy, pitty party! 'Gotta get back to work and pull myself up by my own bootstraps! I do though wonder why there is so much whining and hand-wringing by the socialist crowd. Haven't they heard? The Democrats took over in January! Re. Kit Bond (R-M, I'll keep on voting for him just as I've done for many, many years! Take care! 
| |||
1/30/2007 6:17 am |
Yes, on one hand, there should be a federal minimum wage to serve as a standard upon which the individual states can legislate increases or restrictions. On the other hand, as of late, American industry is suffering like never before outsourcing. It truly is an exodus; to China, India, the poorer countries in Africa. A cap on wages may be the only thing which can save what industry still remains to us. Furthermore, by many projections, a wage cap will arrest inflation in general. Sorry MissAnn to shift your post rightwards. ("Heil Buchanan!")
| |||
1/30/2007 9:14 am |
MissAnn, I think there's more to this issue than may meet the eye or that can be communicated in a headline. I saw enough of the Senate floor debate yesterday (C-SPAN) on the minimum wage issue to understand that the House version of a minimum wage bill and the version put forth by Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) in the Senate was defeated. As I understand it they are debating another version which incorporates some off-setting tax breaks for small employers which were not included in the House bill or the Kennedy bill. I didn't watch long enough to understand arguments that Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) was offering, but this is where it appears to get a bit more complicated. He was showing charts for various states that totaled up the entire income available to current minimum wage recipients inclusive of non-wage benefits available to them (presumably requiring application and confirmation that they meet qualification guidelines). I may be confused on this point but I think that he was making the case that some people in some states might actually lose total income (all benefits included) were they to receive the proposed minimum wage increase. In other words, more would come from private employers and less from government (taxpayer funded) sources and that under current regulations some of the government benefits would be cut back and that the cutback in the total of all other benefits would exceed the increase in annual income from the minimum wage increase by as much as $1200 per year in some states. There was also some discussion about state minimum wage laws and federal minimum wage law. The issues are whether federal law is even needed and if federal law is enacted how it would relate to the various laws. In addition, there is evidently a Republican strategy to use as much time as possible this week on this legislation and thus push debate on the Iraq War policy resolutions into next week. (I'll be damned! Who would have thunk it! Political maneuvering is still live and well on Capitol Hill!) I think we need to give the Senate more time to get to a well thought out bill that takes all things into consideration. Let's get to the Iraq War policy resolutions. I wanna see the show of hands on the various resolutions! Take care, MissAnn! Harry
| |||
1/31/2007 12:52 pm |
MissAnn, they're still debating the minimum wage bill in the Senate as of Thursday. You'd think that after 10 years, all the pros and cons on this issue would have already been put forward. I'm OK with a raising the minimum wage and offering some appropriate tax package to small/medium business owners to compensate for their increased labor expenses. This will push other wages up as well, however, especially where a labor union contract ties member wages to a formula based upon the minimum wage. As someone observed in a previous comment, we should all realize that living expenses will go up eventually as well. I wonder if the lower wage earners will always be "chasing their tail"? I don't know what we can do about obscene compensation packages for the executives of public corporations, but outside of a socialistic approach, I would think it fair to say to the corporations which receive corporate welfare (tax deduction and credits) above certain limits, that we expect you to keep your executive compensation packages below certain absolute caps or within certain ratios of executive pay to average hourly worker pay. In other words, the public is subsidizing your corporation for the general welfare and now we expect you to behave as good corporate citizen and adopt these compensation rules to promote the general welfare (and the long-term health of your corporation so we don't have to come along with a corporate bailout at some time in the future). Just rambling, Miss Ann! Take care!
| |||
|
It amazes me that people can argue against paying people a living wage. We have government programs to support people who can't feed themselves, but we refuse to have our free enterprise system pay them enough to buy groceries on their own. Exactly who is subsidizing whom? My middle class taxes are used to subsidize the wages paid by wealthy employers so they can enhance their profits and take vacations to Hawaii. And for the "lady" who is bragging about her relative breaking the law by employing illegals for starvation wages, I wonder how she would feel about a burgler who felt he should have the "freedom" to decide which laws he wants to follow? What a bunch of fuckin hypocrites. I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man. - Winston Churchill
| |||
|
As long as you let the special interests and the elites define the debate, you end up arguing in a circle within the boundaries they set. When corporate CEOs are making more money in a year than they can spend in a lifetime, while paying the people who do the work barely enough to stay alive, you have to look at the whole system. Robber baron capitalism, supported by subsidies from Washington and paid for by campaign contributions and my taxes is NOT a free enterprise system. I'll pay more in taxes this year than a person earning minimum wage will earn. My father was a bureaucrat and my mother was a teacher. You have to stop arguing with the selfish elites on their own terms and re-define the debate. I'm a capitalist to the core, and though socially liberal, not a bleeding heart. The Republicans have a difficult time with me.  I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man. - Winston Churchill
|
Become a member to create a blog
